Respecting cultures and the rights of sovereign nations seldom figures prominently in the tactics used by Greenpeace to impose its corporate will with respect to marine mammal conservation. Employing tactics reminiscent of the most repressive corporate multi-nationals, Greenpeace and their familiar cadre of global environmental entrepreneurs, are throwing their considerable financial weight at a group of small Caribbean nations, in an attempt to persuade them, one way or another, to abstain in yet another upcoming IWC vote, on the already- failed Australian and New Zealand proposal to establish a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. This proposal is expected to fail once again at this year’s IWC annual meeting, not because the Caribbean nations will not support it, but because it has no scientific basis, and the whales in this region are already protected.

Nevertheless, the world is witnessing a repetition of Greenpeace’s infamous and scandalous strategy with its latest propaganda attack on the six small island states. Greenpeace recruited these same states to vote for the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. Francisco Palacio, a former Greenpeace activist, revealed in a documentary, how Greenpeace, at that time, spent their contributor’s funds lavishly on trips and gifts to individuals in positions of influence. This time however, the nations are standing strong on their support of sustainable whaling practices because they are dependent upon ocean resources, and they all identify with other nations that use living marine resources.

It is time that Greenpeace and other environmental radical groups realized that respecting people and their cultures will achieve more for conservation than using the deceitful and repressive tactics that are the corporate hallmark of global tyrants. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (US), the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Humane Society of the United States, their many partners and business associates, lead a global coalition that speaks on behalf of the wealthy, western, urban elite. Their business practices sometimes suggest they are no more tolerant or respectful of cultures, nor willing to work in harmony with the interests of local people, than the most despotic examples of corporate tyranny.